Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 2993040" data-attributes="member: 20805">Hmm.. I must have missed something. I thought the OP's complaint was the search for 'balance' in a generic sense, not when you define unbalanced as 'another class is more powerful in combat'Just so happens that combat is the easiest area of the game to demonstrate balance as every game uses the same rules. Balance in social encounters varies because how the individual GM defines how to apply the rules and how much IC play counts towards the encounter.I agree with francisca, all the options added into 3.x.. which was one of the main selling features when it came out.. allows for a more granular level of balance. Earlier editions were 'easier' to balance because there was less variance in characters. A 5th level fighter was a 5th level fighter. Cookie cutterish. In 3.x, two 5th level fighters can have widely variant sets of ability. This means looking at balance has to be a tighter, smaller consideration. If you dont understand, just look at the fuss over a LA +0 race that grants +2 to WIS... To me, options and granularity is good. The ability to play a character concept that way I imagine it by gathering abilities from the various available classes, PrC or otherwise, make the game much more enjoyable.  Yes, more options means more of a chance for someone to find and exploit a rules loop-hole. Its not like this is new in 3.x, loopholes have been utilized in all versions of the game.</blockquote>

Verification